Why would Paul tell Christians not to do sins they are incapable of doing?

Sorry to burst your bubble, ittuttut...

Luke 1 68-72 is not a parable.

 

Four sentences, and not one of which has one verse of Scripture to adequately support it, with the partial exceptions of Numbers two and three. But why quibble over what Scripture actually says?

Ed

 

The NLT transposed into the Greek text was a typo, when the BB would not let me enter the complete post as it was over 10,000 Charachters. But that is exactly the Greek text in the quote you cited. The numbers and letters in the brackets are the designations of the various Greek texts. I do apologize for any typos found here in getting this to print. I did edit and correct, after the fact, when I read your post.

Gone again!

Ed

 

I called your words hogwash and not against you personally of which I am allowed to do. It is not a ad hominem attack on you personally but I do attack your posts as you do mine. So it goes both ways. So you going to take your marbles and go home too.

Also, you did what you accused me of doing plus you use Bibles which have things added to them but try and condemn me because I try to explain a scripture which is double tongue. IMO As a matter of fact it sounds like you use a lot of translations and they all different wording mostly. That too is double tongue. If you want just the scripture you will have to post Greek and Hebrew. You are condemning me for what translators did which is completely silly. IMO

Before you go, I would like to post the rest of 1John 2:




1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Oh, I don't think the underlining was in the orginal scripture either but was added by you of which you started this whole thing condemning me for adding of which I used ().

You started it about me adding to the scriptues while all the time adding to the scriptures yourself which is hypocritical. IMO. I never said nothing to you, came on here and lo and behold you had cherry picked some of my post and were condemning me for them without giving the whole context in which the words were said. They were all the way back on page 6 and took me a while to find them but here you are today posting them and condemning them. What is ironic is you have been adding to the scriptures all along, using Bibles with references and red lettering and different translations which means different words. So, all them Bible can't be right for they are not worded the same and then you have been adding every since you been on here.

 

Amy let's try to look at this biblically. I believe what you may be trying to say is we Christians that believe all our sins have been forgiven, and are OSAS are living under the law. We are not under law, but those that are under law break the law, and under the law they will be judged. Are you living under the law, for it says any under the law that breaks only one, is guilty of all. I hope this is not the way you believe, but you are leaving that impression, that if you do a certain sin, you will be put back under the law. If so, then there is no way for you to again become saved, and even if you could, you would have to worry again that you could become unsaved again, and again, and it just goes on.

We can get confused when we try to bring other understandings into what God tells us. As sons of God we no longer are under the law. We have been forgiven in a judicial sense, of all our sins, and now made "sons of God. We have been bought and paid for and if we now sin, we are no longer under the law, but living in this world we can get dirty. If we do a "dirty deed", are we then lost for our Father made no provision for us? Don't we find that Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God shed His blood for us in the first place, and has made provision for us? If we can become unsaved then why did He die for us and not leave things as they were and let a High Priest keep offering the annual offering for the nation of Israel, and those of Israel (and any proselytes) offer sacrifice for themselves for their sins? The Cross has to have a purpose, just as does Damascus Road.

Should we not surmise that if Jesus is only going to die once for our sins, that He expected those that believe in His name for salvation would understand He has no intention of ever letting us go? What kind of love is the love of God, now our Father, if He will not, or cannot give us parental forgiveness?

How can we in our faith believe now being in Christ Jesus we are now made perfect while in these bodies? Since we are not perfect, and sin is always a possibility, we need to know that God is now our Father, and not our judicial judge. He will deal with us, and as our Father He will not send us to the lake of fire. We have already been judged, and in the end time, there is that judgment held for those that will be thrown into the lake of fire.

 

Bro. Bob
I will post again what I posted on another thread to help clear up matters for you. See if you can get it this time:

 

DHK, I have asked you this question before also:

How many times does one have to commit adultery before it's called a "lifestyle"?
Is there a certain number or maybe a certain number of times in a specified period of time? Say twice in a year? Three times in 10 years? And who decides if it's a lifestyle or not?

 

Amy that is a great question . . . one that I believe has been asked of you recently But I look forward to hearing DHK's answer and/or your answer.

 

I have been reading many of the threads on this topic. One thing that keeps coming up is people using the extreme examples of people kidnapping and maybe raping children. It is my understanding from all the evidence I have ever read, that a person doesn't just wake up one day and then goes out and do this kind of crime. Rather it has been a life of sin and depravity that leads downward and downward into deeper depravity. This type of person would have long been involved in a lifestyle that led to needing a bigger thrill or fantasy. Kind of like a drug addict would build up a tolerance and need stronger drugs to get the same high he used to get on lesser drugs.

So while I believe that a Christian can sin, I don't believe that a Christian would continue to live in the types of sins for the length of time that would lead to the extreme examples that people keep giving. If they were saved, God would convict them of their sins earlier. If they were not convicted I doubt they were ever really saved.

I think the real issue is a lifestyle of continual sin, rather than if a person backslides and falls into sin, but then is convicted and is restored to fellowship with God.

 

Even though I think you are using the word "lifestyle" to cover all bases, if used right then I agree with this part.
This part I agree with if committing adultery once is the life style, and think I know what you are trying to say DHK; I really believe you know you went too far and are trying to back up some. Well, back up the the above statement and you have it right. God Bless,


I don't think any of you like the stance you have taken and it is "eating" at you for you know God is watching. You always label someone else as being the one who could have or did commit such sin, while holding out that you never have. That part gives me some encouragement. If none of you are guilty, maybe it not so bad after all, you just mixed up thinking that some of these fellows who have did these things are still or ever were Christians.


ituttut;
One other thing just generally speaking. There is only one church now and that is the Church of Jesus Christ. We are not under the Law but under Grace Covenant. For some to believe there are two ways to Heaven are just absolutely wrong. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life" and all of us are following Jesus. Just because the Ten Commandments were carried across Jordan in the Ark, does not mean we are saying we are under the Law. I resent anyone saying that I believe or think "I am under the Law", and neither is Amy. It has been a while since we had a beast offering.

 

Last question first: Who decides? God does. Salvation's not our call anyway...so if we're in doubt about someone else's salvation, then we're just in doubt.

Let's take the adultery off the table. Let's use a sin that's not listed in the infamous list: "Sins a Christian could never commit." Let's take gossip, for instance:

The Bible doesn't give us a defining point between "sin," "habit," and "lifestyle." It does tell us that one who is a believer is a new creation. It also tells us about struggling with our sin nature in Romans 7. From that, we can glean these truths:

• If one is a Christian, there should be some sort of change.
• Christians still struggle with the old crucified self.

 

I don't remember it being asked of me, but it wouldn't be the first time I forgot something. :laugh: Now, what were we talking about?
Oh yea, lifestyle. Read Steven's answer above. I think he's got it.

 

You still did not answer the question. How many times does it take? I'm not the one saying the scriptures are speaking of lifestyles. That was DHK. And why do we have to take adultery off the table. That was the subject even tho it makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

 

We agree with that, except we make God and the Christian the "winner". IMO

 

If the Bible doesn't give us a defining point, why are you trying to? The Bible says that whoever commits these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. Wouldn't a person who lives a sinful lifestyle be unsaved? Where is the change? Like Steven said in a previous post, in order to fall so far as to commit murder or other sins, one has to ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit for a very long time, which would have to be considered a lifestyle of disobedience.

 

I answered this question before, even addressed it to you. But apparently you didn't like my answer. If I answer it again will you accept it this time?
One must take the epistle of First John in its context. It is not an epistle written for you or anyone else to point fingers at others. It is an epistle written to give us assurances of our salvation. What are the evidences of our salvation? You can ask that question of yourself.
John begins to give some of the answers:
He says we know that we are saved if we keep his commandments.
We know that we are saved if we have love for the brethren.
We know that we are saved if we love not the world.

These are just some of the many evidences that he gives. So let me turn the question right back on you. How many of the commandments do we need to keep before we can say that we love him?
How many of the brethre do we have to love before we can say that we love him.
How much of the world do we have to hate before we can say that we love him?

In light of the above questions your question appears ridiculous.
You must give account for yourself, not for others. You will stand before Jesus Christ some day and give account for Amy not for Bro. Bob, or for Ed, or for any one else on this board.

So what kind of lifestyle are you living? How many lies does it take for you to live the life of a liar? Do you live the life of a liar? I don't expect you to answer that question publicly. But you can go down the list of any sin you want and ask your self:
Do I life the life of a: gossip, a drunkard, a coveter, an adulterer, a rebel, an angry person, etc.
What kind of lifestyle do you live. It is a question that every one of us need to ask ourselves.

 

DHK, this is what you said:

I agree with this statement...but,

Your stance all along has been that a Christian can commit any sin under the sun and still be a saved person. I have been saying that a Christian cannot commit certain sins and be called saved. So now you are saying that even though a Christian can commit any sin, they will not live a lifestyle of sin. I'm just asking you what a lifestyle of sin means. I say a Christian will not murder, because of the constant conviction of the Holy Spirit. You say a Christian can commit murder, but he's still saved unless he has a lifestyle of murder. And in that case he isn't saved or he wouldn't have that lifestyle. So that's why I keep asking how many times does a person have to murder before it called a lifestyle. I say once. I say a person who commits murder was never saved to begin with. IMHO.

 

Then according to you David was never saved, even though it was God himself that referred to him as a "man after God's own heart." David, more than all the other OT saints was unusual. He had the Spirit of God upon him. He was able to play his harp, and with Spirit-filled music cast the demon out of Saul. He wrote most of the book of Psalms. He was undoubtedly the most Godly king that Israel ever had. And yet he not only committed murder, but he also committed murder.
He didn't live a lifestyle of murder. He repented afterward. But, as a believer, he still murdered. The same is true of any Christian. Any Christian can commit any sin. If they don't repent, then perhaps one might question their salvation. But it is not up to us to judge a person's salvation in the first place, especially on the basis of those statement in Frist John. They are meant for you to judge yourself. There is no sin that a Christian cannot commit. If you can find otherwise show me from the Bible.

 

Fine. And I do judge myself.

 

I wanted to use another example besides adultery, murder, and rape. Those are the emotional "hot buttons" we've been dwelling on. But let me remind you...according to your interpretation,

These are the sins that you all have stated that scripture says a Christian can't commit:

So I wanted to use one of the other "impossible sins" you all have mentioned, in the name of consistency.

You want to discount the possibility of a Christian committing any of these sins. I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation of the passage. You claim scripture would indicate that a Christian can't do these sins. I say scripture would indicate a Christian can't abide in these sinful lifestyles.